Marxist Critique of Capitalism: Infrastructure and Superstructure
Marxist Critique of Capitalism
Infrastructure and Superstructure
From the described contradiction and the supporting infrastructure arises a superstructure—a set of laws, cultural practices, and political forms serving a dual function: justifying and legitimizing the conflict while concealing it. From a Marxist perspective, the political and legal systems serve the interests of the wealthy, perpetuating exploitation. Politics, a privileged activity reserved for legal experts, supports a social order favoring the elite. Cultural products entertain or numb the proletariat, diverting them from their problems and hindering awareness of their situation.
Infrastructure and superstructure are mutually reinforcing. The infrastructure creates and maintains a superstructure that contributes to its empowerment, establishing a circular relationship. However, Marx believes the fundamental contradiction will eventually manifest, leading to social revolution. The proletariat’s inhumane situation, paradoxically, is a condition for revolution: the greater the exploitation, the closer capitalism’s collapse. Revolutionary work should primarily target the relations of production within the infrastructure. Simultaneously, the proletariat must become aware of their oppression and shared interests.
For Marx, capitalism is the final antagonistic mode of production, based on class conflict. Where exploitation is most acute—industrialized societies—a proletarian revolution will occur, gradually extending to other societies. Following a period of proletariat dictatorship, a communist society will emerge. Private property (the root of inequality) will be abolished, the means of production collectivized, and a system of political self-management based on resource assemblies established. This will ultimately lead to a classless society. The logic of history, built on contradiction and confrontation, will culminate in justice and equality, where humanity triumphs over capital.
Historical Materialism and Social Analysis
A key difference distinguishes Marx’s dialectic from Hegel’s: history’s driving force isn’t ideas, but material conditions. Human thought is a product of one’s position in the production process. This materialist approach underlies Marx’s critique of capitalism. The economy helps us understand history, its changes, and the formation of new production modes.
This inversion of Hegel’s thesis is summarized thus: class struggle is the motor of history. Antagonism between social classes drives social change and ushers in new historical eras, conceived as successive modes of production. Improvement in one class’s material conditions occurs at another’s expense; this conflict transforms society. History’s function is to resolve radicalized contradictions. Protests, uprisings, and demands create space for new production modes. Paradoxically, social change requires increased economic exploitation until it becomes unsustainable.
Marx applies these ideas to capitalism, a system where capital’s value surpasses human value. Capital dominates, “buying” raw materials, machinery, and even human time and effort. Society is divided into proletariat and bourgeoisie. A vital contradiction arises from surplus value—the market value exceeding production costs, determining profit. Workers contribute to production, yet all surplus goes to the bourgeoisie. This creates exploitation, condemning the proletariat to live under the bourgeoisie. Denied participation in surplus value, the proletariat cannot improve their social position, especially since their labor’s value is determined by the market.